via TTAG where you can bet the commenters will object. How? I can't imagine, but check it out later. Bloomberg hate is second only to Obama hate and it's all alive on The Truth About Guns.
What a load of unmitigated rubbish. It's already illegal to sell a gun across state lines without an FFL being involved--in other words, a background check done by a licensed dealer. The only way that a gun can legally be sold on the Internet is if it's between to private citizens within the same state. Bloomberg should stick to what he knows best, making himself a member of the one percent.
GC wrote: . It's already illegal to sell a gun across state lines without an FFL being involved--in other words, a background check done by a licensed dealer. The only way that a gun can legally be sold on the Internet is if it's between to private citizens within the same state. Bloomberg should stick to what he knows best, making himself a member of the one percent.
So long as there is no registration of these transactions enforcing that law is next to impossible.
There is a big difference between the two. One is a proven liar, hypocrite and probably a criminal and the other is President of the United States.
Bloomberg has his flaws, but he made valid points in this video about guns and the gaps in effective gun control and enforcement that would keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally ill. You demonstrate the very hate that Mikeb mentions, while not countering in any way whatsoever that what he says is true and correct.
Shame on you.
I'm not going to have a chance to make that call to the DA in Queens until later this afternoon; if because of the time zone difference it gets too late in the day when I get back from appointments and errands, that call may get pushed back to tomorrow morning - just letting you know I hadn't forgotten, and I've been jotting down questions to ask. I'm also going to see if there is an email contact I can use as well.
You know, I'm not the only person here who can fact check btw. The rest of you (other than Laci who is fabulous at it ) should consider doing that sometime.
Registration will do nothing to stop illegal sales--really, Greg?
At this point, all we have is trace info to point out who the last legal buyer happened to be. I can get into the drawbacks of that system.
X says the gun was stolen and not much happens--even if a lot of X's guns turn up at crime scenes not long after he purchases them.
I can get into the fact that US gun laws favour the criminal, but I know that would be lost on the pro-gun crowd.
The main point--it costs a lot of time and money trying to build a case against that gun owner short of catching him making illegal sales--especially for the Feds.
Anyway, firearm turns up at a crime scene which is registered to someone. Under registration, they are required to notify LEO within a reasonable time that the firearm was lost or stolen.
Lots of guns showing up set of bells and whistles that somebody might not be such a law abiding gun owner after all.
Of course, people like Greg and all don't like this sort of scenario because it is easier to remain willfully ignorant than deal with the truth.
But, this is one place where the car analogy works--Cars are registered and look at how that cuts down on illegal use.
Also, the point is that criminals DON'T register their firearms, which makes it easier to prosecute them.
Of course, Greg knows far more about the law and all this than I do.
I should say, up until a criminal pokes a gun into Greg's face.
But that would never happen since the current system is very good at preventing gun crime.
"So long as there is no registration of these transactions enforcing that law is next to impossible."
Bingo.
Gunloons like to pretend all laws are equally and diligently enforced.
"And registration will do what to stop sales between criminals? Nothing, that's what."
Ah, yes. The criminals don't obey the law paradox. Let's not forget that all guns that wind up in criminal hands started out in the hands of law-abiding citizens.
Tell me, GC--awhile back we posted a story about a reporter who published the names of CCW permit holders. Completely legal. He was beset with phone calls threatening his life and those of his family. Who made the threats? If, as you claim, criminals don't care about laws and will do as they please---is it safe to assume the threatening calls came from law-abiding citizens?
Thomas said... Is it safe to assume the threatening calls came from law-abiding citizens? Absolutely, law abiding citizens practicing their first amendment rights......
I am so hoping, Thomas, that you are being sarcastic about the people making threats.
Otherwise we'd have to believe that you don't know threats are not covered by 1st amendment rights. They are in fact, of course, unlawful.
We'd also have to wonder why it is you don't know that the 1st Amendment covers public speech not being wrongly limited by government,not threats in private speech by phone calls, email, snail mails, texts,etc. So this would appear not to qualify as public speech under the 1st Amendment while also not being 1st Amendment protected speech because of the unlawful threatening content.
So, clearly we have CCW people acting unlawfully, making threats which since they are known possessors of lethal weapons, means those threats are credible and plausible. So all those CCW bad people should go to jail and forever and ever lose their right to guns for abusing their carrying permits.
Ol Tommy was jist havin' hisself a little fun. Why, I've seen the same sort of fun (nooses on the doorknobs of black student's dorm rooms) where all the leftylozerz get theirselves in an uproar. Quit bein' so darned touchy!
Oh, btw, that abc newsline story I linked to on the "Moron Teabagger With Gun Arrested At Airport.", said, quite unequivocally that Meckler was in the city for FOUR days with the gun. Wait, you know what it didn't say that. It said he showed up with the gun after having been in the city for FOUR days. So, maybe he bought it illegally OR the Gunzfairy brough it to his hotel room. I'm sure it was prolly the latter.
Publishing the names of license holders may be legal, but it certainly was wrong to do. Perhaps you haven't heard of privacy? Do you have a problem with respecting the privacy of gun owners? If so, I expect to see your real name and address posted here shortly. That's only fair.
Democommie, et al.,
How do I get in touch with these gun fairies that you keep talking about? I've had to pay for every gun that I own.
Greg Camp wrote:Greg Camp said... And registration will do what to stop sales between criminals? Nothing, that's what.
Registration will probably do very little if anything much to stop sales between criminals. It will do something to stop sales between the people who are buying guns ostensibly lawfully to sell to people who couldn't buy them for themselves.
Or should we believe Greg has never heard or or been able to understand the concept of a straw purchase.
According to the Bureau of Justice statistics, 40 percent of criminals obtain their firearms from friends or family with a bit less than 10% from some other kind of straw purchase.
So registering those kinds of private transactions - the straw purchases and the family and friends transfers would eliminate approximately 50% of the firearms that are currently in the hands of criminals.
So......the gun loons resistance to this kind of registration and tracking of transfers would SUBSTANTIALLY reduce the number of criminals who currently have guns or can get guns too easily.
But NOOOOOOOOOOOOO, you object.
So you guys are in part, because of that objection, responsible for those guns being in the hands of criminals. You refuse to stop it, or to let anyone else stop it. Shame on you for being in favor of criminals having guns.
Whistling in the dark, Greg said, "And registration will do what to stop sales between criminals? Nothing, that's what."
It will do two things, both preventing guns from ending up in criminal hands.
1. straw purchasing will end. If the person buying the gun has to show documentation of ownership and the gun at some point in the future, no longer will people be able to buy guns for smugglers and criminals and get away with it.
2. you legitimate gun owners will no longer be able to "inadvertently" sell your guns to unqualified people like you can and do now.
Gun registration will only stop the illegal sales of registered guns. What about the vast number of guns that aren't registered at the moment? You do have a fantasy that those guns will get registered, perhaps by that gun fairy.
"So, clearly we have CCW people acting unlawfully, making threats which since they are known possessors of lethal weapons, means those threats are credible and plausible. So all those CCW bad people should go to jail and forever and ever lose their right to guns for abusing their carrying permits.
I assume you agree, Thomas? Greg? Crunchy? FWM?"
Threats? Lists? Are you referring to the 6 or 7 year old story that someone dredged up a few weeks ago? I'm not really sure what you are asking about.
Oh, btw, that abc newsline story I linked to on the "Moron Teabagger With Gun Arrested At Airport.", said, quite unequivocally that Meckler was in the city for FOUR days with the gun.
If Meckler stays out of prison he should count himself a very lucky, it is not going to happen the state of NY has at least one SCotUS rulings so he is screwed, that being said NY is a cesspool of bad prosecutions against law abiding people that were legitimately traveling to the airport from out of state and being arrested and stealing their property....
"Publishing the names of license holders may be legal, but it certainly was wrong to do. Perhaps you haven't heard of privacy? Do you have a problem with respecting the privacy of gun owners?"
You're fucking kidding, right?
The names were in PUBLIC records you stupid asshole. WTF? But, then again, you're the moron who thinks that if you don't tell me what campus you work on in Northwest Arkansas that I can't find out without doing something illegal.
There is far too much information that ought to be private, but is in fact readily available. We're losing our privacy a little at a time and in large measures, and not many seem to be aware of it. But if you don't care about such matters, perhaps you'll post your real name and address on this site.
"There is far too much information that ought to be private, but is in fact readily available."
Let's have the list, moron.
Mikeb302000:
Correct me if I'm mistaken but don't most of the gunzloonz who post here pretty much dismiss acting in the public's interest as their reason for CCW? Don't they generally say that the whole "militia" thing is meaningless and that they have no duty towards any of their fellow citizens in this regard?
Yet they strive, mightily and constantly to secure the same RIGHTS for people in other states than the one they live in to be allowed CCW RIGHTS with no training, registration or limits of any kind? I mean, I guess if that's their nature then that's their nature, but do they do engage in the same sort of hand wringing regarding other people's civil rights, such as gay marriage or a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.
I'm only asking because I don't recall seeing a lot of signs at GAY Pride or Pro-choice rallies that say things like, "This Life NRA member demands equal marriage rights for all!".
I'm on record as supporting equal marriage rights, but since I'm not a life member of the NRA, that doesn't count, I suppose. I don't generally go to parades, but I have marched in just the kind that you named.
You want a list of privacy violations? I hope that you delete your cookies when you're done being on-line for the day. I hope that you don't give out your telephone number at the Box-Mart when the checkout teenager asks for it. I recall you being retired, but if you were working, I hope that your employer doesn't look into your medical history to decide whether to keep you on or not. Need I continue?
You have issues about online privacy? I got news for ya, bub, a lot of the internet is on a direct feed to some infoscoopin' bots in one intelligence agency or another.
You seem curiously reticent about revealing the location and name of the institution of learning (?) where you draw a paycheck. I'm gonna guess that a dedicated search would turn up all the information about you that someone needs, inside of a couple of hours, to come knockin' on your door. Wouldn't be me, I'm not interested in confronting someone who thinks they're a gunslinger.
Lots of guns showing up set of bells and whistles that somebody might not be such a law abiding gun owner after all.....
....The main point--it costs a lot of time and money trying to build a case against that gun owner short of catching him making illegal sales--especially for the Feds.
No it does not.... properly run the feds could shut down straw purchases from FFL's with very little cost, once they have a bead on a prolific straw purchaser it just takes one confirmed straw purchase and a sentancining of time in prison not parole 10 years for any mother/student/friend.... no lienciency straight to prison.....
but they don't do that..... they do not try, how much money did the feds spend on F&F tracking guns to Mexico, when 80% of the weapons that and trackakable were American made and being shipped directly to the cartels FFL's
The BATFE did ran at least three operations to try and stop straw purchasers and they cocked all three of them pretty badly (if you want the name of the thrid one just ask, it was an entirely domestic operation) they lost 2-6000 guns and 300 Mexican citizens dead and 1 US citizen.
If you want to stop domestic to domestic straw purchasers it is not terribly difficult to do, if you are competant at your job.....
GC writes Thomas, Exactly so. Gun control advocates want to be safe themselves, but want to expose us gun owners to the world.
Bullshit.
We want to be safe FROM YOU. We believe, based on facts, that you are more dangerous to yourself and others with a firearm than without one. I'm certainly not in favor of exposing you gun owners to the world; I definitely want you to keep your clothing on your bodies - and not just because it is winter either.
I know - that was a joke.
We don't want you harmed either, not you, not anyone.
You want to join the argument, fine. Try doing some background reading on the issue, first.
Greg Camp has been saying for some time now that he does CCW everywhere he goes, except into the buildings on the college campus where he works. When asked which campus that might be, he's not willing to divulge that information.
If I wanted to find him, assuming he's not a sockpuppet (which I don't believe he is) it's not a hard thing to do. Public records, of which there is an abundance, make locating people, who aren't trying to hide, fairly simple.
I have not done that, nor do I have an intention of doing it.
I have a photo of myself on my blog and on my comments here. I use a blognomen that I've used for the last 8 years. I've had a couple of gunzloonz assholes come over to my blog and leave threatening comments. Laci The Dog and Mikeb302000 have both had some of the same asshole gunzloonz attempt to "out" them. I'm hardly dumb enough to think that, in this age of information, it's possible to hide from people that are actively seeking you. Otoh, I'm not giving them anything to work with.
Let me know when any of you or your gunzloonz friends receive threats against them from me or any other poster on this blog.
Yes, democommie, the CCW guys usually insist on the idea that they're only carrying for their own safety and that of their family. They don't do it for the others or to be vigilantes or crimestoppers.
"Yes, democommie, the CCW guys usually insist on the idea that they're only carrying for their own safety and that of their family."
Oddly, a lot of the people who say this admit that their wives don't go about armed at all times and that they allow them AND the children to do so without qualm.
What a load of unmitigated rubbish. It's already illegal to sell a gun across state lines without an FFL being involved--in other words, a background check done by a licensed dealer. The only way that a gun can legally be sold on the Internet is if it's between to private citizens within the same state. Bloomberg should stick to what he knows best, making himself a member of the one percent.
ReplyDeleteThere is a big difference between the two. One is a proven liar, hypocrite and probably a criminal and the other is President of the United States.
ReplyDeleteGC wrote:
ReplyDelete. It's already illegal to sell a gun across state lines without an FFL being involved--in other words, a background check done by a licensed dealer. The only way that a gun can legally be sold on the Internet is if it's between to private citizens within the same state. Bloomberg should stick to what he knows best, making himself a member of the one percent.
So long as there is no registration of these transactions enforcing that law is next to impossible.
FWM wrote FatWhiteMan said...
ReplyDeleteThere is a big difference between the two. One is a proven liar, hypocrite and probably a criminal and the other is President of the United States.
Bloomberg has his flaws, but he made valid points in this video about guns and the gaps in effective gun control and enforcement that would keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally ill. You demonstrate the very hate that Mikeb mentions, while not countering in any way whatsoever that what he says is true and correct.
Shame on you.
I'm not going to have a chance to make that call to the DA in Queens until later this afternoon; if because of the time zone difference it gets too late in the day when I get back from appointments and errands, that call may get pushed back to tomorrow morning - just letting you know I hadn't forgotten, and I've been jotting down questions to ask. I'm also going to see if there is an email contact I can use as well.
You know, I'm not the only person here who can fact check btw. The rest of you (other than Laci who is fabulous at it ) should consider doing that sometime.
And registration will do what to stop sales between criminals? Nothing, that's what.
ReplyDeleteRegistration will do nothing to stop illegal sales--really, Greg?
ReplyDeleteAt this point, all we have is trace info to point out who the last legal buyer happened to be. I can get into the drawbacks of that system.
X says the gun was stolen and not much happens--even if a lot of X's guns turn up at crime scenes not long after he purchases them.
I can get into the fact that US gun laws favour the criminal, but I know that would be lost on the pro-gun crowd.
The main point--it costs a lot of time and money trying to build a case against that gun owner short of catching him making illegal sales--especially for the Feds.
Anyway, firearm turns up at a crime scene which is registered to someone. Under registration, they are required to notify LEO within a reasonable time that the firearm was lost or stolen.
Lots of guns showing up set of bells and whistles that somebody might not be such a law abiding gun owner after all.
Of course, people like Greg and all don't like this sort of scenario because it is easier to remain willfully ignorant than deal with the truth.
But, this is one place where the car analogy works--Cars are registered and look at how that cuts down on illegal use.
Also, the point is that criminals DON'T register their firearms, which makes it easier to prosecute them.
Of course, Greg knows far more about the law and all this than I do.
I should say, up until a criminal pokes a gun into Greg's face.
But that would never happen since the current system is very good at preventing gun crime.
"So long as there is no registration of these transactions enforcing that law is next to impossible."
ReplyDeleteBingo.
Gunloons like to pretend all laws are equally and diligently enforced.
"And registration will do what to stop sales between criminals? Nothing, that's what."
Ah, yes. The criminals don't obey the law paradox. Let's not forget that all guns that wind up in criminal hands started out in the hands of law-abiding citizens.
Tell me, GC--awhile back we posted a story about a reporter who published the names of CCW permit holders. Completely legal. He was beset with phone calls threatening his life and those of his family. Who made the threats? If, as you claim, criminals don't care about laws and will do as they please---is it safe to assume the threatening calls came from law-abiding citizens?
Is it safe to assume the threatening calls came from law-abiding citizens?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, law abiding citizens practicing their first amendment rights......
Thomas said...
ReplyDeleteIs it safe to assume the threatening calls came from law-abiding citizens?
Absolutely, law abiding citizens practicing their first amendment rights......
I am so hoping, Thomas, that you are being sarcastic about the people making threats.
Otherwise we'd have to believe that you don't know threats are not covered by 1st amendment rights. They are in fact, of course, unlawful.
We'd also have to wonder why it is you don't know that the 1st Amendment covers public speech not being wrongly limited by government,not threats in private speech by phone calls, email, snail mails, texts,etc. So this would appear not to qualify as public speech under the 1st Amendment while also not being 1st Amendment protected speech because of the unlawful threatening content.
So, clearly we have CCW people acting unlawfully, making threats which since they are known possessors of lethal weapons, means those threats are credible and plausible. So all those CCW bad people should go to jail and forever and ever lose their right to guns for abusing their carrying permits.
I assume you agree, Thomas? Greg? Crunchy? FWM?
dog gone:
ReplyDeleteOl Tommy was jist havin' hisself a little fun. Why, I've seen the same sort of fun (nooses on the doorknobs of black student's dorm rooms) where all the leftylozerz get theirselves in an uproar. Quit bein' so darned touchy!
Oh, btw, that abc newsline story I linked to on the "Moron Teabagger With Gun Arrested At Airport.", said, quite unequivocally that Meckler was in the city for FOUR days with the gun. Wait, you know what it didn't say that. It said he showed up with the gun after having been in the city for FOUR days. So, maybe he bought it illegally OR the Gunzfairy brough it to his hotel room. I'm sure it was prolly the latter.
Jadegold,
ReplyDeletePublishing the names of license holders may be legal, but it certainly was wrong to do. Perhaps you haven't heard of privacy? Do you have a problem with respecting the privacy of gun owners? If so, I expect to see your real name and address posted here shortly. That's only fair.
Democommie, et al.,
How do I get in touch with these gun fairies that you keep talking about? I've had to pay for every gun that I own.
Greg Camp wrote:Greg Camp said...
ReplyDeleteAnd registration will do what to stop sales between criminals? Nothing, that's what.
Registration will probably do very little if anything much to stop sales between criminals. It will do something to stop sales between the people who are buying guns ostensibly lawfully to sell to people who couldn't buy them for themselves.
Or should we believe Greg has never heard or or been able to understand the concept of a straw purchase.
According to the Bureau of Justice statistics, 40 percent of criminals obtain their firearms from friends or family with a bit less than 10% from some other kind of straw purchase.
So registering those kinds of private transactions - the straw purchases and the family and friends transfers would eliminate approximately 50% of the firearms that are currently in the hands of criminals.
So......the gun loons resistance to this kind of registration and tracking of transfers would SUBSTANTIALLY reduce the number of criminals who currently have guns or can get guns too easily.
But NOOOOOOOOOOOOO, you object.
So you guys are in part, because of that objection, responsible for those guns being in the hands of criminals. You refuse to stop it, or to let anyone else stop it. Shame on you for being in favor of criminals having guns.
Whistling in the dark, Greg said, "And registration will do what to stop sales between criminals? Nothing, that's what."
ReplyDeleteIt will do two things, both preventing guns from ending up in criminal hands.
1. straw purchasing will end. If the person buying the gun has to show documentation of ownership and the gun at some point in the future, no longer will people be able to buy guns for smugglers and criminals and get away with it.
2. you legitimate gun owners will no longer be able to "inadvertently" sell your guns to unqualified people like you can and do now.
Gun registration will only stop the illegal sales of registered guns. What about the vast number of guns that aren't registered at the moment? You do have a fantasy that those guns will get registered, perhaps by that gun fairy.
ReplyDelete"So, clearly we have CCW people acting unlawfully, making threats which since they are known possessors of lethal weapons, means those threats are credible and plausible. So all those CCW bad people should go to jail and forever and ever lose their right to guns for abusing their carrying permits.
ReplyDeleteI assume you agree, Thomas? Greg? Crunchy? FWM?"
Threats? Lists? Are you referring to the 6 or 7 year old story that someone dredged up a few weeks ago? I'm not really sure what you are asking about.
Oh, btw, that abc newsline story I linked to on the "Moron Teabagger With Gun Arrested At Airport.", said, quite unequivocally that Meckler was in the city for FOUR days with the gun.
ReplyDeleteIf Meckler stays out of prison he should count himself a very lucky, it is not going to happen the state of NY has at least one SCotUS rulings so he is screwed, that being said NY is a cesspool of bad prosecutions against law abiding people that were legitimately traveling to the airport from out of state and being arrested and stealing their property....
"Publishing the names of license holders may be legal, but it certainly was wrong to do. Perhaps you haven't heard of privacy? Do you have a problem with respecting the privacy of gun owners?"
ReplyDeleteYou're fucking kidding, right?
The names were in PUBLIC records you stupid asshole. WTF? But, then again, you're the moron who thinks that if you don't tell me what campus you work on in Northwest Arkansas that I can't find out without doing something illegal.
Do you ever leave your neighborhood?
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteThere is far too much information that ought to be private, but is in fact readily available. We're losing our privacy a little at a time and in large measures, and not many seem to be aware of it. But if you don't care about such matters, perhaps you'll post your real name and address on this site.
Thomas, crying the pro-gun lament about how persecuted they are, said, "NY is a cesspool of bad prosecutions against law abiding people."
ReplyDeleteThe poor gun-rights advocates, no wonder they're so touchy.
"There is far too much information that ought to be private, but is in fact readily available."
ReplyDeleteLet's have the list, moron.
Mikeb302000:
Correct me if I'm mistaken but don't most of the gunzloonz who post here pretty much dismiss acting in the public's interest as their reason for CCW? Don't they generally say that the whole "militia" thing is meaningless and that they have no duty towards any of their fellow citizens in this regard?
Yet they strive, mightily and constantly to secure the same RIGHTS for people in other states than the one they live in to be allowed CCW RIGHTS with no training, registration or limits of any kind? I mean, I guess if that's their nature then that's their nature, but do they do engage in the same sort of hand wringing regarding other people's civil rights, such as gay marriage or a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.
I'm only asking because I don't recall seeing a lot of signs at GAY Pride or Pro-choice rallies that say things like, "This Life NRA member demands equal marriage rights for all!".
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteI'm on record as supporting equal marriage rights, but since I'm not a life member of the NRA, that doesn't count, I suppose. I don't generally go to parades, but I have marched in just the kind that you named.
You want a list of privacy violations? I hope that you delete your cookies when you're done being on-line for the day. I hope that you don't give out your telephone number at the Box-Mart when the checkout teenager asks for it. I recall you being retired, but if you were working, I hope that your employer doesn't look into your medical history to decide whether to keep you on or not. Need I continue?
Your request for forgiveness will be considered.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteYou have issues about online privacy? I got news for ya, bub, a lot of the internet is on a direct feed to some infoscoopin' bots in one intelligence agency or another.
You seem curiously reticent about revealing the location and name of the institution of learning (?) where you draw a paycheck. I'm gonna guess that a dedicated search would turn up all the information about you that someone needs, inside of a couple of hours, to come knockin' on your door. Wouldn't be me, I'm not interested in confronting someone who thinks they're a gunslinger.
Lots of guns showing up set of bells and whistles that somebody might not be such a law abiding gun owner after all.....
ReplyDelete....The main point--it costs a lot of time and money trying to build a case against that gun owner short of catching him making illegal sales--especially for the Feds.
No it does not.... properly run the feds could shut down straw purchases from FFL's with very little cost, once they have a bead on a prolific straw purchaser it just takes one confirmed straw purchase and a sentancining of time in prison not parole 10 years for any mother/student/friend.... no lienciency straight to prison.....
but they don't do that..... they do not try, how much money did the feds spend on F&F tracking guns to Mexico, when 80% of the weapons that and trackakable were American made and being shipped directly to the cartels FFL's
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/north-america-mainmenu-36/8599-reports-cia-working-with-mexican-drug-cartels
http://www.naturalnews.com/032934_ATF_illegal_firearms.html
The BATFE did ran at least three operations to try and stop straw purchasers and they cocked all three of them pretty badly (if you want the name of the thrid one just ask, it was an entirely domestic operation) they lost 2-6000 guns and 300 Mexican citizens dead and 1 US citizen.
If you want to stop domestic to domestic straw purchasers it is not terribly difficult to do, if you are competant at your job.....
You seem curiously reticent about revealing the location and name of the institution of learning (?) where you draw a paycheck.
ReplyDeleteWow and you are a regular chatty Cathy about those things aren't you?
Thomas,
ReplyDeleteExactly so. Gun control advocates want to be safe themselves, but want to expose us gun owners to the world.
GC writes
ReplyDeleteThomas,
Exactly so. Gun control advocates want to be safe themselves, but want to expose us gun owners to the world.
Bullshit.
We want to be safe FROM YOU. We believe, based on facts, that you are more dangerous to yourself and others with a firearm than without one.
I'm certainly not in favor of exposing you gun owners to the world; I definitely want you to keep your clothing on your bodies - and not just because it is winter either.
I know - that was a joke.
We don't want you harmed either, not you, not anyone.
Tommy:
ReplyDeleteYou want to join the argument, fine. Try doing some background reading on the issue, first.
Greg Camp has been saying for some time now that he does CCW everywhere he goes, except into the buildings on the college campus where he works. When asked which campus that might be, he's not willing to divulge that information.
If I wanted to find him, assuming he's not a sockpuppet (which I don't believe he is) it's not a hard thing to do. Public records, of which there is an abundance, make locating people, who aren't trying to hide, fairly simple.
I have not done that, nor do I have an intention of doing it.
I have a photo of myself on my blog and on my comments here. I use a blognomen that I've used for the last 8 years. I've had a couple of gunzloonz assholes come over to my blog and leave threatening comments. Laci The Dog and Mikeb302000 have both had some of the same asshole gunzloonz attempt to "out" them. I'm hardly dumb enough to think that, in this age of information, it's possible to hide from people that are actively seeking you. Otoh, I'm not giving them anything to work with.
Let me know when any of you or your gunzloonz friends receive threats against them from me or any other poster on this blog.
Yes, democommie, the CCW guys usually insist on the idea that they're only carrying for their own safety and that of their family. They don't do it for the others or to be vigilantes or crimestoppers.
ReplyDelete"Yes, democommie, the CCW guys usually insist on the idea that they're only carrying for their own safety and that of their family."
ReplyDeleteOddly, a lot of the people who say this admit that their wives don't go about armed at all times and that they allow them AND the children to do so without qualm.
Yes, the "family protectors" usually spend more time with their workmates or shootin' buddies than they do with the family.
ReplyDelete